If they made a new class in the future, what would it be?

[Swnem]

Can we all make a deal not to mention Tinker or Tinkerer in topics like this? Because Teriz and his adversaries will find the thread and make it unreadable with their senseless back-and-forth without anybody giving each other an inch.

No. It's up to the mods to moderate trolling. Not our fault if they don't do it.

I will not stop mentioning what it is i'd like cause of them. They are irrelevant in my life.

[Teriz]

Mechanically, they're the exact same. Which is the whole point.

They're mechanically similar because you purposely concocted an ability to attempt to mirror the mechanic. No class currently has the pocket factory mechanic in the game. That's the point.

Spores have a lot of spikes on them they can attack with:

Cool. Show me the Druid ability where they create a flower that pumps out spores that attack targets and then explode.

Then how come you haven't accepted any facts, so far?

A nonexistent ability you created isn't a fact.

No, that is not my argument. My argument, which you'd know if you actually bothered to read what I wrote, countless times, is that themes do not offer exclusive gameplay.

No, but themes can offer unique gameplay.

You ignoring the facts does not make my argument "silly" or even "not based on facts".

And again, your made up Druid flower ability is not a fact, and is quite silly.

The actual "fact of the matter" is that none of that proves that "themes provide unique gameplay". The second fact you ignore is that those mechanics can go to existing classes instead, as proven by existing classes gaining new mechanics as time went on, like shadow priests getting the insanity mechanic, and balance druids getting the sun/moon mechanic.

And until those mechanics appear in another class, a Tinker bringing those mechanics into the game would be unique.

And that is nothing but a coat of paint. Because those exact same mechanics could be given a different "coat of paint" and given to a different class.

The operative word in that statement is "could".

I don't see how "undeath" is the DK's frost spec, or even a combination of it. Is it because of the "high lich" transformation? It's just a couple of abilities. That's like saying the elemental shaman spec is the mage's fire spec because they have a couple of fire spells, while ignoring all the rest. "Dread" is also not unholy because we don't have the necromancer creating "death and decays" or summoning undead minions. It's him creating oozes and plagues and poison. It's heavily inspired on Professor Putricide.

The core of that spec is the ability to transform into a Lich. The spec also contains multiple abilities that use frost or Shadowfrost abilities. Like I said, it's a combination of Unholy and Frost, but still you're talking about a Necromancer class concept that is using the spec configuration of the existing DK class.

Dread is Unholy because plagues and oozes are part of Unholy. In fact, Unholy had an ability in Legion where they created oozes.

Golems and their concept do not exist in Warcraft? Really? I could swear I saw golems in Warcraft since WoW day 1...

Where is a Necromancer in WoW using Golems to fight with? You used the D2 Golem concept in order to sidestep Necromancers using skeletons and ghouls because (surprise!) Death Knights already summon Skeletons, Ghouls, and pretty much any undead minion you can think of.

And even if the Diablo 2 necromancer inspired me to create the golem mechanic for my necromancer concept... what does that prove?

It shows that the DK takes up so much of the Warcraft Necromancer that you have to go to a completely different game in order to pull concepts from.

Because you were the one to bring Warcraft 3 into the argument to say "look at this character not using X spells". I simply used Warcraft 3 to show that certain characters did not have the abilities they have today.

Well Blood Mages did use Fire magic in WC3. The Mage class pulled from that. Druids were separated by group, but Blizzard simply mashed all the Druid units together in order to make the Druid class. That really isn't the same thing as the nonexistent Kel'thuzad that supposedly could use both Necromancer and Mage spells.

Show me death knights casting blood and frost magic in Warcraft before the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Show me monks using "mist magic" before Mists of Pandaria. If you cannot do both of those things, then your argument gets invalidated because it would have been shown that we don't have to see those characters actually doing those things to give said abilities to a new playable class.

I don't need to, because they use those abilities in Warcraft, and its clear why they gave those classes those abilities. There's zero reason for Blizzard to give a Necromancer class poison, fire, or arcane spells. You're simply arguing that point because the DK absorbs pretty much every logical ability for the Necromancer concept.

- - - Updated - - -

The trick isn't to get hung up on a theme like a necromancer ,tinker or anything like that but to example what we already have in the game and try to find a niche that can be filled and then add the flavor.

Wow has 36 specs and out of those 36 there isn't really a mid range damage dealer that I can see. I imagine that for example would be a good angle to start from rather then just mix and matching existing classes.

We get hung up on themes because themes lead to new and interesting abilities instead of crusty rehashed abilities. The reason the Tinker is the clear favorite here is because it offers a thematic that no other class possesses while something like Necromancer is possessed by multiple classes and will really offer nothing new to the table.

As for what you're requesting, I don't think a mid-ranged damage dealer would make much sense. I think simply having another physical ranged class to rival Hunters would cover what we're missing here, and again, the Tinker covers that quite well.

[Traveler Voltin]

If you don't see how your version of tinker would render engineering utterly obsolete then there really is absolutely no hope in trying to debate this with you. What do you not understand about "If players can just level a class to accomplish everything an engineer does without spending gold" do you NOT understand? Or are you being purposely obtuse?

Oh, and also, you have successfully created a double standard by yourself. You have just admitted that from a lore standpoint, there is NO reason other races can't just pilot and use a mech, thereby qualifying them for tinker.

how would engineering be useless if the tinker class showed up?

[Ielenia]

They're mechanically similar because you purposely concocted an ability to attempt to mirror the mechanic. No class currently has the pocket factory mechanic in the game. That's the point.

I designed that ability to prove that the claim that "mechanical theme offers unique gameplay" is false. No current class currently has that mechanic, true, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be given to them. Just like, back in the day, no class had an "insanity" mechanic or a "light/dark" mechanic, but then the priests and druids, respectively, eventually got those new mechanics that, according to your logic, could have gone to a new class.

Cool. Show me the Druid ability where they create a flower that pumps out spores that attack targets and then explode.

Can you be any more dishonest? The whole point is about creating a hypothetical ability, i.e., one that not exist but could exist, to show how themes don't provide "unique gameplay"... and you're now asking me to "prove the ability exists"?

And this is doubly dishonest because, not long ago, you admitted that all we need to do is link concepts together to make them viable, and guess what? Druids are about nature. Balance druids can summon nature. Flowers and spores are nature. Spores can damage and attack targets. The links are there.

A nonexistent ability you created isn't a fact.

It's a fact that no mechanics are exclusive to themes, therefore themes don't offer "unique gameplay", for example.

No, but themes can offer unique gameplay.

No. That is objectively false, as it was demonstrated several times to not be the case.

And again, your made up Druid flower ability is not a fact, and is quite silly.

I never said the ability I described "is a fact". I said it is based on facts. And as far as "silly" goes, then, well, then I think the tinker class is silly. Therefore, by your rules, it's never going to happen.

And until those mechanics appear in another class, a Tinker bringing those mechanics into the game would be unique.

And it's a fact that none of that would prove that the "unique gameplay" is because of the theme.

The operative word in that statement is "could".

No, it's not the operative word. The whole statement is a fact, that any and all of that "unique gameplay" things you claim is "exclusive to the mechanical theme" can be given to the existing classes.

The core of that spec is the ability to transform into a Lich. The spec also contains multiple abilities that use frost or Shadowfrost abilities. Like I said, it's a combination of Unholy and Frost, but still you're talking about a Necromancer class concept that is using the spec configuration of the existing DK class.

Dread is Unholy because plagues and oozes are part of Unholy. In fact, Unholy had an ability in Legion where they created oozes.

No. No, it's not the "core of the spec", considering it can change into two other forms that are not liches: a nerubian and a death stalker. And, again, "using frost abilities" is irrelevant, because the death knight uses frost abilities when the mage already used frost abilities. The paladin and priest both use holy magic. Warlocks, mages and shamans use fire magic. Again: you're basically saying that the elemental shaman spec is just the fire mage spec because it has a handful of fire spells.

In short, you are stretching the definition of the death knights specs so thin to make a case here, that you don't see how this argument of yours nullifies the existence of present classes and specs.

Where is a Necromancer in WoW using Golems to fight with?

Abominations are golems.

You used the D2 Golem concept in order to sidestep Necromancers using skeletons and ghouls

False in both accounts. You would know I'm not "sidestepping" anything if you read my necromancer concept, especially the Bone spec I designed.

It shows that the DK takes up so much of the Warcraft Necromancer that you have to go to a completely different game in order to pull concepts from.

Except... I didn't pull any concepts from Diablo 2. I simply used concepts that already exist within the Warcraft franchise in a different way that what they're already being used.

Well Blood Mages did use Fire magic in WC3. The Mage class pulled from that.

The fire magic those hero units used is fel fire: "Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness."

Druids were separated by group, but Blizzard simply mashed all the Druid units together in order to make the Druid class. That really isn't the same thing as the nonexistent Kel'thuzad that supposedly could use both Necromancer and Mage spells.

That doesn't change the fact that Malfurion in Warcraft 3 could not shapeshift into bear, a cat or a stag.

I don't need to, because they use those abilities in Warcraft, and its clear why they gave those classes those abilities.

You have to, because it's your own argument thrown back at you. Death knights never used frost or blood abilities in Warcraft 3, or even in WoW, before the Wrth of the Lich King expansion that made them playable. By your logic, "having a vampiric runeblade" is not reason enough to give death knights an entire spec based on blood magic, if you discount the fact that a necromancer school is teaching necromancers alchemy from a guy who favors poison and fire as not enough reason to give a necromancer class a poison spec.

We get hung up on themes because themes lead to new and interesting abilities instead of crusty rehashed abilities.

No, it doesn't. "New and interesting mechanics" can be given to any class in the game, present or not. But if you qualify "new and interesting" as in how the ability looks (i.e. mech, rockets, lazers, bombs) then you're implying what matters to you is not the actual gameplay, but how the class looks. And looks are not gameplay.

[Teriz]

I designed that ability to prove that the claim that "mechanical theme offers unique gameplay" is false. No current class currently has that mechanic, true, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be given to them. Just like, back in the day, no class had an "insanity" mechanic or a "light/dark" mechanic, but then the priests and druids, respectively, eventually got those new mechanics that, according to your logic, could have gone to a new class.

But Blizzard didn't design that ability. That's the point. Could Blizzard give Druids that ability? Sure. They could also give Druids the ability to transform into cotton candy and float around a map. Blizzard's ability to do something doesn't prove an argument.

Can you be any more dishonest? The whole point is about creating a hypothetical ability, i.e., one that not exist but could exist, to show how themes don't provide "unique gameplay"... and you're now asking me to "prove the ability exists"?

No, the entire point is that Blizzard designed a tech-based ability in WC3 that has a very high chance of getting ported over to WoW, and that ability has mechanics that are unique within the class lineup.

And this is doubly dishonest because, not long ago, you admitted that all we need to do is link concepts together to make them viable, and guess what? Druids are about nature. Balance druids can summon nature. Flowers and spores are nature. Spores can damage and attack targets. The links are there.

Which is a completely different argument under a completely different context.

It's a fact that no mechanics are exclusive to themes, therefore themes don't offer "unique gameplay", for example.

Once again, if Pocket Factory enters the game as a Tinker ability, please name another class ability with a similar mechanic. Don't worry, I'll wait.

No. That is objectively false, as it was demonstrated several times to not be the case.

Then answer the question above.

I never said the ability I described "is a fact". I said it is based on facts. And as far as "silly" goes, then, well, then I think the tinker class is silly. Therefore, by your rules, it's never going to happen.

There's a difference between a class concept that fits the pedigree of previous existing classes, and a head canon ability concocted purely to be obtuse and contrarian.

And it's a fact that none of that would prove that the "unique gameplay" is because of the theme.

No other class could drop a factory that could produce upgradeable robots. Only a technology class provides that theme. No other class could summon upgradable mechanical turrets. Again, only a technology class provides that theme. No other class could allow a character to pilot a mechanical vehicle into battle. Only a technology class provides that theme. etc.

No. No, it's not the "core of the spec", considering it can change into two other forms that are not liches: a nerubian and a death stalker. And, again, "using frost abilities" is irrelevant, because the death knight uses frost abilities when the mage already used frost abilities. The paladin and priest both use holy magic. Warlocks, mages and shamans use fire magic. Again: you're basically saying that the elemental shaman spec is just the fire mage spec because it has a handful of fire spells.

The DK uses frost abilities because the Lich and Kel'thuzad uses frost abilities.

Now let's be completely honest here; Why do you think Lich transformation and Frost abilities are present in this class concept? Is there any WC3 hero or major Warcraft character this could be inspired by?

Abominations are golems.

Then why not simply have your necromancer concept summon Abominations?

Is it because DKs can already summon Abominations?

False in both accounts. You would know I'm not "sidestepping" anything if you read my necromancer concept, especially the Bone spec I designed.

Your Bone spec is also inspired by Diablo... Just saying.

The fire magic those hero units used is fel fire: "Many of the stoic high elves, reeling from the loss of their ancient homeland, Quel'Thalas, have given in to their hatred and despair and embraced the dark side of their magical natures. Calling themselves 'Blood Elves' - these cold hearted refugees seek to expand their remaining magical powers at any cost - even if it means courting the infernal powers of the Burning Legion! Though still loyal to the Alliance, the Blood Elves' passions will lead them not only to the highest pinnacles of power, but to the darkest depths of madness."

Where do you think Flamestrike came from? What do you think abilities like Phoenix Flame are inspired by?

That doesn't change the fact that Malfurion in Warcraft 3 could not shapeshift into bear, a cat or a stag.

So you think Malfurion wouldn't be able to transform into a bear when he is an arch druid and Druids of the Claw could?

You have to, because it's your own argument thrown back at you. Death knights never used frost or blood abilities in Warcraft 3, or even in WoW, before the Wrth of the Lich King expansion that made them playable. By your logic, "having a vampiric runeblade" is not reason enough to give death knights an entire spec based on blood magic, if you discount the fact that a necromancer school is teaching necromancers alchemy from a guy who favors poison and fire as not enough reason to give a necromancer class a poison spec.

Again, here's the difference; Death Knights actually wielded vampiric rune blades, which opens up the possibility of Death Knights with vampiric abilities. You have yet to produce a single Necromancer using poison magic or poison alchemy.

No, it doesn't. "New and interesting mechanics" could be given to any class in the game, present or not.

I think it's far more productive to look at things that actually exist. Within Warcraft, Pocket Factory exists. A Tinker piloting a mech exists. A Necromancer using poison/Fire/Arcane magic or a Druid dropping a giant flower that shoots spores does not.

[enigma77]

Tinker

/10tinkers

- - - Updated - - -

how would engineering be useless if the tinker class showed up?

Engineering wouldn't be made useless by Tinker being a class more than Alchemy is made useless by Crimson Vial or Healthstone existing, lol.

[Teriz]

Tinker

/10tinkers

- - - Updated - - -



Engineering wouldn't be made useless by Tinker being a class more than Alchemy is made useless by Crimson Vial or Healthstone existing, lol.

Yep, or Hunter's grenades, Monk Brews, Mage Food, DK's Runes, etc.

Amazing how only the Tinker destroys professions.....

[Shedaar]

Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed for either tinker (i doubt we will get an expansion where mechanics play a major lore) and for necromancer (since i doubt we will have any major focus in death for some time).

Please remember that the class has to be a selling point for the expansion, so if we have a dragon expansion we will have a chance for dragonsworn or w/e you call it, if we have a void expansion maybe we will get void-class or void-tainted skin abilities or w/e etc. etc.

I, for one, would welcome some new class even if the other ones aren't even close to being balanced just for the flavor.
I'm bored.

[Calfredd]

how would engineering be useless if the tinker class showed up?

I think you read that wrong he said engineering would be useless if Teriz's tinker class showed up.

[Traveler Voltin]

I think you read that wrong he said engineering would be useless if Teriz's tinker class showed up.

that doesnt change my question.

[Teriz]

I think you read that wrong he said engineering would be useless if Teriz's tinker class showed up.

What does that even mean, "my" Tinker class? I've always said that the Tinker I believe will eventually get implemented into WoW is a version very close to the design and ability set of the Tinker heroes from WC3 and HotS, which are heavily Goblin and Gnome based. Those are entirely Blizzard's concepts and ideas, not mine. Further, the Island Expedition teams backed that up, by having Tinkers being predominantly Goblins and Gnomes and using their technology.

Now, would that technology type bear resemblance to the tech type in the engineering profession? Certainly. However, a key fact that opponents of the Tinker concept like to ignore is that NONE of the Tinker's abilities exist in Engineering, and a class and a profession serve entirely different purposes in WoW and don't effect each other. An engineer gathering scraps to craft a pair of goggles isn't affected by a Tinker tanking a raid while piloting a mech.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately I think the ship has sailed for either tinker (i doubt we will get an expansion where mechanics play a major lore) and for necromancer (since i doubt we will have any major focus in death for some time).

Please remember that the class has to be a selling point for the expansion, so if we have a dragon expansion we will have a chance for dragonsworn or w/e you call it, if we have a void expansion maybe we will get void-class or void-tainted skin abilities or w/e etc. etc.

I, for one, would welcome some new class even if the other ones aren't even close to being balanced just for the flavor.
I'm bored.

I disagree. There’s still Undermine and a Titan-based expansion where mechanics can come into play. I would say the situation is far worse, because the Necromancer makes perfect sense for Shadowlands, and Blizzard chose to boost the Death Knight class instead.

There was a lot of build-up for the Tinker in BFA, and there’s actually evidence that the Tinker was planned as a class for the current expansion, but was scrapped because it didn’t match the theme. So while the ship has sailed for the Necromancer, I do believe that the Tinker will be introduced at some point in the future.

[Ielenia]

But Blizzard didn't design that ability. That's the point. Could Blizzard give Druids that ability? Sure. They could also give Druids the ability to transform into cotton candy and float around a map. Blizzard's ability to do something doesn't prove an argument.

"Reductio ad absurdum" does not apply here and only makes you look silly. I've detailed how the mechanics of the pocket factory could be given to druids, in a manner that perfectly fits the balance spec. And no, the fact that Blizzard did not design the ability that I created is irrelevant, because that was never my argument. I said it's an ability that Blizzard could create to use the mechanics you claim are "exclusive to the mechanical theme".

No, the entire point is that Blizzard designed a tech-based ability in WC3 that has a very high chance of getting ported over to WoW, and that ability has mechanics that are unique within the class lineup.

No, that's not the point, and has never been the point. The point of the conversation here-- in which you butted in the middle of it, mind you-- is the false claim that a mechanical theme brings "unique gameplay".

Which is a completely different argument under a completely different context.

Because you say so? I'm not seeing how they are different arguments or even different contexts. Both are about linking themes and concepts.

Then answer the question above.

Your question is irrelevant because you're asking something I never argued for. I never said that the mechanics of "pocket factory" currently exist in the present playable classes. My only argument, in which you're making a monumental effort to move away from, is that themes do not bring "unique gameplay".

There's a difference between a class concept that fits the pedigree of previous existing classes, and a head canon ability concocted purely to be obtuse and contrarian.

There's none. Your attempt at mockery does not count as a difference.

No other class could drop a factory that could produce upgradeable robots. Only a technology class provides that theme.

This is strong evidence that you're doing this just to argue for argument's sake, as it shows that you know the difference between gameplay and theme. I'm talking about mechanics and gameplay and how themes do not bring any uniqueness to any of those.

The DK uses frost abilities because the Lich and Kel'thuzad uses frost abilities.

And both the paladin and the priest use holy abilities from the exact same source.

Now let's be completely honest here; Why do you think Lich transformation and Frost abilities are present in this class concept? Is there any WC3 hero or major Warcraft character this could be inspired by?

Then why not simply have your necromancer concept summon Abominations?

Variation, perhaps? I mean, you're basically asking why playable demon hunters don't become a copy of Illidan's demon form.

Your Bone spec is also inspired by Diablo... Just saying.

And you're moving the goalposts. "Just saying".

Where do you think Flamestrike came from? What do you think abilities like Phoenix Flame are inspired by?

It doesn't matter. The blood mage from Warcraft 3 is much more akin to the warlock class we have right now if we go by their backstory. The WC3 lore explicitly said they turned to the fel and demonic.

So you think Malfurion wouldn't be able to transform into a bear when he is an arch druid and Druids of the Claw could?

If we go by what he could do in the Warcraft 3 game, just like you're doing for Kel'Thuzad, no, he wouldn't. Kel'Thuzad was a powerful mage of the Kirin Tor... yet you're saying he couldn't cast arcane and fire magic because you never saw him doing so in Warcraft 3.

Again, here's the difference; Death Knights actually wielded vampiric rune blades, which opens up the possibility of Death Knights with vampiric abilities. You have yet to produce a single Necromancer using poison magic or poison alchemy.

And you haven't produced a single death knight pre-Wrath that used blood or frost spells. You're just pointing at their weapon and saying "blood spec! That's your blood spec!" while at the same denying the exact same courtesy to the idea that necromancers in a necromancer school being taught alchemy from a teacher that favors poisons and fire link a hypothetical necromancer playable class the possibility of having a poison spec.

That is called "double standards".

I think it's far more productive to look at things that actually exist. Within Warcraft, Pocket Factory exists. A Tinker piloting a mech exists. A Necromancer using poison/Fire/Arcane magic or a Druid dropping a giant flower that shoots spores does not.

You know what also does not exist? Vulpera being a technologically-savvy people to the level of gnomes, mechagnomes or goblins. But that didn't stop you from making them tinker material.

Also: druids summoning plants exist. Spores being hostile and attacking those that come close exist. Spores detonating upon death exist.

[TheRevenantHero]

that doesnt change my question.

The way Teriz describes tinker is literally just engineering without the gold and material cost. All the abilities he's talked about in his version of tinker can pretty much be done by engineering gadgets. The only ability he talks about that engineering can't do is pocket factory, which mechanically would just be reskinned Army of the Dead. Everything else? Just engineering in class form so people wouldn't need to level a profession. They could just roll a tinker instead. The only reason people would pick up engineering would be to craft and sell mounts since Tinker could do everything else for free.

[Traveler Voltin]

The way Teriz describes tinker is literally just engineering without the gold and material cost. All the abilities he's talked about in his version of tinker can pretty much be done by engineering gadgets. The only ability he talks about that engineering can't do is pocket factory, which mechanically would just be reskinned Army of the Dead. Everything else? Just engineering in class form so people wouldn't need to level a profession. They could just roll a tinker instead. The only reason people would pick up engineering would be to craft and sell mounts since Tinker could do everything else for free.

so arent going to answer my question

[TheRevenantHero]

so arent going to answer my question

I literally did answer your question. If that is your response, then that means I just didn't answer the question the way you WANTED me to. I don't know what to tell you.

[Traveler Voltin]

I literally did answer your question. If that is your response, then that means I just didn't answer the question the way you WANTED me to. I don't know what to tell you.

engineer would still make guns(and maybe maces like BFA), enchantments for ranged weapons, mounts, companion pets, crazy tech toys, and blingtron.
so once again how does having a Tinker ruin engineering?

[TheRevenantHero]

engineer would still make guns(and maybe maces like BFA), enchantments for ranged weapons, mounts, companion pets, crazy tech toys, and blingtron.
so once again how does having a Tinker ruin engineering?

I don't know a single person who uses engineering guns over dungeon and raid drops. I don't know a single person who uses scopes over weapon enchants. All of the other gadgets would be covered by teriz's idea for tinker. Are you seriously not following at all?

[Traveler Voltin]

I don't know a single person who uses engineering guns over dungeon and raid drops. I don't know a single person who uses scopes over weapon enchants. All of the other gadgets would be covered by teriz's idea for tinker. Are you seriously not following at all?

so you dont have an answer.

[TheRevenantHero]

so you dont have an answer.

Jfc ok I'm not falling for this bait. You're clearly being purposely obtuse to get a rise out of me and I'm not falling for it.

[Traveler Voltin]

Jfc ok I'm not falling for this bait. You're clearly being purposely obtuse to get a rise out of me and I'm not falling for it.

your answers are just. "they dont use it so it doesnt count"